Archers; Too heavily armed

Users who are viewing this thread

reklem said:
I definetly think rhodok sharpshooters are overpowered. Of course, the should keep their Über-crossbows, but they are dressed in the same mail armor as sea raiders, and cause enormous damage with their sword-swings aswell!
I suppose that is meant to make up for the fact that Rhodoks have no cavalry and to illustrate the fact that Rhodoks make tough soldiers, no matter of specialization. Not that sharpies make much of a problem for me and my Hired Blades though :twisted:
 
Ludial said:
I suppose that is meant to make up for the fact that Rhodoks have no cavalry and to illustrate the fact that Rhodoks make tough soldiers, no matter of specialization.

That's a really good point... Can i quote it in my signature?
 
uhh.... sure, i agree that they are to heavily armed in melee fights, but the thing here to remember is that generally, against something like a nord warrior or swadian infantry, a mid-line foot solider, they aren't really that effective. The armour is excellent at deflecting arrows, and their sheilds can easily take up 2 10 shots. mayb they should cut their melee weaponry, while enhacing their ranged ability. thoughts?
 
FailedEagle said:
uhh.... sure, i agree that they are to heavily armed in melee fights, but the thing here to remember is that generally, against something like a nord warrior or swadian infantry, a mid-line foot solider, they aren't really that effective. The armour is excellent at deflecting arrows, and their sheilds can easily take up 2 10 shots. mayb they should cut their melee weaponry, while enhacing their ranged ability. thoughts?
if you want that, just play with Khergits. Their horse archers are the very embodiment of what you suggest.

I think it's rather cultural - Vaegirs love their sabers and axes, and never leave home without them. So it can be expected of them to be good with those weapons. Rhodoks all make good, stout soldiers, and have no cavalry, so I suppose that every one of them is expected to be able to hold his own in a fight. Khergits are all about archery, and suck at melee, and are thus the best archers and the worst fighters. Nord are brutal warriors, and think nothing of archers, so their archers are an offense to the arts of archery and warfare. For the snob Swadians, only the knights are worthy, and their other units are all weak, simply because they're not knightly cavalry. And that's it.
 
Eh, to my point of view the archers are exactly right. The aiming is quite hard to master (if possible to master) But you have your point nad i have mine.
 
Well not exactly, English longbowmen usually carried falchions, arming swords, axes and such, and could wear chainmail or padded gambesons, Ive never seen any range units other than heroes with armor above chainmail types.
 
Tarrak said:
Highend ranged troops should b pretty well armoured, such as Sharpshooters, Marksmen, Crossbowmen and Archers. But those below should carry Falchions or similar weapons and perhaps some padded armour and a hood or some of the other light armours.
None should carry twohanded weapons of course, but swords, even good swords should be open to them. And often archers did carry small target or buckler sheilds, so smaller round shields should be open to them too.

I suggest people look into the equipment regular crossbowmen had in the 1300s+ which is the approximate time we are dealing with here. It could get pretty heavy, some even had reinforced mail AND padded armour as well a bascinets.

But right now it really seems the problem lies in the weaponskills of the units, and that they carry big Voulges or Bardiches.
The Weaponskills are just about even for all styles for the ranged units. Clearly they should have no skills in polearms or thrown for instance, while their main skills should be pretty high and a fair skill in singlehanded (though not as good as now). A change of those two areas would have a significantly larger impact than going about and stripping them of armour, which they DID carry. Let them retain the armour, but change the skills (we all remember how 'fast' we were at 60-80 points).
i think the higher tier the better equipment. like tier 1 have peasant armor/light leather, hunting/shortbow with 1 arrows and dagger/falchion and alike and 2arrows/1Arrows&shield. T2 leather, shortB, short sword T3 leather/studded leather/light mail, longbow, sword and 2arrows/1arrows&shield. I also think that spearthrowers (Vae. skirmisher) should be better att hand-to-hand than archers. take inspiratin from "Medieval Total War".
 
Cahtush said:
I also think that spearthrowers (Vae. skirmisher) should be better att hand-to-hand than archers. take inspiratin from "Medieval Total War".

This isn't just inspiration from M(2)TW, this is how javelin-men were used historically, for the most part. Throw javelins to disrupt the formation and follow by a charge.
In my opinion javelins and such should either have a low quantity of missiles, or a change of AI when used. Because right now they treat it like a bow, and don't even use a shield if they wear one.
 
okay, so an archer once beat one my knights with his fists. Weren't the Rhodok Sergeants designed to protect the crappy crossbow men, yet they can handle themselves just fine in melee combat.
 
BloodyGlaives said:
Well not exactly, English longbowmen usually carried falchions, arming swords, axes and such, and could wear chainmail or padded gambesons, Ive never seen any range units other than heroes with armor above chainmail types.
Most longbowmen came from the peasants and lower classes so this would make sense.
 
just quote it every time you're in here?  Is it far back in the thread?

and...

shouldn't the strength requirement be less restrictive on Xbows? After all, the bigger, more powerful bows had geared cranking mechanisms, and you don't need to be as strogn to use that (albeit perhaps slowly) as to cock some lever-arm crossbows.

That was the point, I believe, of crossbows - mass-use weapon for average people?
 
Amman de Stazia said:
just quote it every time you're in here?  Is it far back in the thread?

and...

shouldn't the strength requirement be less restrictive on Xbows? After all, the bigger, more powerful bows had geared cranking mechanisms, and you don't need to be as strogn to use that (albeit perhaps slowly) as to cock some lever-arm crossbows.

That was the point, I believe, of crossbows - mass-use weapon for average people?

Indeed! And- a random bit of EA (experimental archeology)- my mum (I know, I know)- with no experience of weapons of any kind can be taught to shoot a crossbow in less than 10 minutes, then hit the throat in a man-shaped target at forty paces with her first shot. No wonder they were the favourite armoury item!
 
they are so simple to learn and operate that the principle has been applied to numerous weapons since:

Use mechanical aid to load and store potential energy.
With the energy being stored by mechanical aid, user can apply all their physical attributes to aiming the weapon.
Use mechanical aid to release energy and launch projectile.

Firearms are basically crossbow technology, where the mechanical energy (tensioned bow) has been replaced by chemical energy (gunpowder then cordite).

and any 7-year-old can use a firearm to deadly effect.

 
jojymo said:
Ya just a few changes and it will be sweet  :lol:

Are the master necromancer at work again  :cool:

But yes it takes many years of training and quite significant strength to use a war bow well or even at all but any peasant can be given a crossbow and use it quite effectively. No offense to your Mum Blackthorn :razz:.
 
Back
Top Bottom